Any fundamentalist who has kept up with the conservative resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is glad for conservatives' advances and rejoices with them in their success. There are several books and articles which have been written from various perspectives about what has happened within the SBC since 1979. Perhaps one of the most significant is The Baptist Reformation (The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention) by Jerry Sutton, written from the conservative point of view and published in 2000 by the SBC's denominational publishing house, Broadman & Holman Publishers. The book's significance is indicated by the endorsements it has received from many of the leading Southern Baptists today, including Morris H. Chapman, James T. Draper, Jr., Kenneth S. Hemphill, Richard D. Land, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, Ed Young, and others.

Still, fundamentalists have raised an important question: "Are these conservative Southern Baptists really fundamentalists?" The question is important, for its answer will largely determine whether those professing fundamentalism ought to embrace the SBC and its leadership. Organizations which have begun as fundamentalist in orientation, such as the Baptist Bible Fellowship International (BBFI) and the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC), are currently facing this issue. Therefore, the question is not only important, it is also timely.

.....................

Conclusion

Clearly the answer to the question, "Are conservative Southern Baptists fundamentalists?" is "No." This answer does not mean that Southern Baptists are not good people who genuinely want to serve the Lord or that the conservatives have not made advances within the Convention. Rather, the answer reveals that the conservatives are not going in the same direction as fundamentalists. Organizations which have been historically identified as separatist and fundamentalist need to decide whether they are willing to partner with conservative Southern Baptists and thus depart from their historic direction. If they are willing to do so, they should drop the fundamentalist identification.

The idea of separation, and the fact that it is a core tenet of fundamentalist Baptists is not the only distinguishing factor between SBC conservatives and fundamentalist Baptists but it is an important one. The doctrine of premillenial dispensationalism is also mentioned, and while there have always been Southern Baptists who are premillenial dispensationalists, there have been plenty who were not, and it hasn't been made a provision of the BFM. Nor is premillenial dispensationalism exclusively conservative.

This particular group doesn't have a clear understanding of Southern Baptist polity, and I don't think most independent, fundamental Baptists do either. The cooperation between the churches and the convention, which includes the institutions which receive its support, is strictly voluntary. There are doctrinal parameters set for the operation of the convention and its institutions, but churches are not required to adopt them in order to be in full cooperation, and in fact, there are state convention bodies, associations and local churches all over the SBC that have not adopted the BFM 2000, or the BFM 1963 for that matter, as a doctrinal statement. In fact, I would say that the BFM is not anywhere near being adequate as a local church's statement of faith. There is no denominational "control" over local churches, associations or state conventions in the SBC.

Ed that is the very nature of fundamentalism. To be a good fundamentalist you always have to be yet more conservative, yet more "pure" and than the next guy (or the next denomination or the next church). Fundamentalist thinking leads eventually to ultra-fundamentalism or extremist fundamentalism because there is no constraint on how conservative is conservative enough.

The fundamentalist Baptist church in Rushville near where I pastored routinely heard sermons on the liberalism of both the SBC church in town and the ABC church in town. Then there was the even more fundy KJV church that preached that the other fundamentalist church, the SBC Church, and the ABC church were all hell bound liberals.

"Rather, the answer reveals that the conservatives are not going in the same direction as fundamentalists."

That is a very broad statement to make, and is certainly true in some respects, especially in regards to denominational separatism. However, I believe the fact that fundamentalists (like the late Jerry Falwell) are more willing to cooperate with the SBC, demonstrates a like-mindedness recognized by fundamentalists, that previously was not.

The article interestingly points out that cooperating with the SBC marks a historical shift for fundamentalists. The next obvious question is "what has given rise to this shift?" I seriously doubt it has anything to do with fundamentalists becoming more open-minded and willing to cooperate. There is only one other obvious option.

Matt Richard wrote:The article interestingly points out that cooperating with the SBC marks a historical shift for fundamentalists. The next obvious question is "what has given rise to this shift?" I seriously doubt it has anything to do with fundamentalists becoming more open-minded and willing to cooperate. There is only one other obvious option.

That doesn't really make any sense. If there is a shift toward cooperating with the SBC, then it would have to be movement on the part of fundamentalists toward cooperation, since the key word here, in the very first sentence is "cooperation." If cooperation is taking place, and hard core fundamentalism represents a completely separatist view, then some fundamentalists, Falwell given as an example, must becoming less separatist.

The link also shares some other examples, such as the leadership at Cedarville University in Ohio entering into a fraternal relationship with the State Convention of Baptists in Ohio, and Liberty University being identified as a Southern Baptist university and receiving support from the conservative state Baptist convention in Virginia. Those actions didn't happen because the SBC was moving closer to fundamentalists, they happened because individuals involved in leadership at both places became more open to cooperation with Southern Baptists.

Sandy wrote:Those actions didn't happen because the SBC was moving closer to fundamentalists, they happened because individuals involved in leadership at both places became more open to cooperation with Southern Baptists.

They became more open to cooperating with Southern Baptists because Southern Baptists came close to agreeing with them. Just because there are groups more conservative than the SBC does not prove that the SBC is not fundamentalist unless you some how find a way to define fundamentalism as "more conservative than anyone else" or "the most conservative position possible" whatever that would be.

Tim Bonney wrote:Ed that is the very nature of fundamentalism. To be a good fundamentalist you always have to be yet more conservative, yet more "pure" and than the next guy (or the next denomination or the next church). Fundamentalist thinking leads eventually to ultra-fundamentalism or extremist fundamentalism because there is no constraint on how conservative is conservative enough.

The fundamentalist Baptist church in Rushville near where I pastored routinely heard sermons on the liberalism of both the SBC church in town and the ABC church in town. Then there was the even more fundy KJV church that preached that the other fundamentalist church, the SBC Church, and the ABC church were all hell bound liberals.

Tim your point is exactly why I started this thread, with out commentary. Thank you.

I think CR has more to do with power and friends than anything theological!

The Disciples were all followers of Christ, but even they could not get along when it came to washing one another's feet = too busy fighting and fussing over who would sit in the places of honor.

In EVERY pretense of theological righteousness there exists a leader whose mother never busted his hind parts for refusing to obey or listen. He learned he was "always right / all powerful / loved the riches associated with position / had underlings willing to do whatever he said so they might be powerful as well one day."

If you are not of mega church quality forget about any real place in the new SBC---except to kiss their kingly feet!!!!

Gene Scarborough wrote:I think CR has more to do with power and friends than anything theological!

Then how do you explain the very distinctive and recognizable doctrinal differences between CBF and the SBC?

The idea of autonomy, expressed by the fundamentalist principle of separation, is found in varying degrees among fundamentalist Baptists. The principle is based on the idea that, while the church exists both as a local and visible body, and a universal body, it is the local body that is the literal expression of the body of Christ. There is a core belief that the local church is the full expression of the body of Christ, and that each local body is fully equipped to do all of the ministry of the church that it is called to do, so no cooperation is necessary. Those are the churches that practice closed communion and send their own missionaries. Some have entered into fellowships, where they have mostly social relationships, or share common support for some institutions and schools. Some have actually formed denominations, but the doctrinal agreement required for joining is tight, with no room for local church differences.

The problem some of those in "fellowships" had with the SBC was that they believed there was enough of a connection within the denominational structure that meant churches couldn't really participate in the CP without supporting some institutions and schools that practice or taught liberal theology. And there is also the belief, which you will find among the more Calvinist brethren of the fundamentalists, that churches getting together and cooperating in missions takes churches out of what God intended, which is that the missionaries are accountable to the local church alone.

"S-h-h-h," said the angel guiding the new heavenly resident choosing his place, "This is the Independent Baptist section and they are convinced they are the only ones here!!!! The Mormons are just around the corner too!!!!!!"

Ed Pettibone wrote:Tim your point is exactly why I started this thread, with out commentary. Thank you.

It is a good topic Ed! What I'd like to figure out some day is what a fundamentalist gets out it all. It seems to me that the quest for doctrinal purity is an impossible dream for human beings. Both Martin Luther and later John Wesley tried to work their way into the kingdom with purity of docrtrine and emphasis on personal piety only to not be satisfied until they came upon the understanding that "the just shall live by faith" so that true personal piety is only by grace.

It is also why I don't understand the attraction to some in the SBC to move in a calvinist direction.

It is a good topic Ed! What I'd like to figure out some day is what a fundamentalist gets out it all. It seems to me that the quest for doctrinal purity is an impossible dream for human beings. Both Martin Luther and later John Wesley tried to work their way into the kingdom with purity of docrtrine and emphasis on personal piety only to not be satisfied until they came upon the understanding that "the just shall live by faith" so that true personal piety is only by grace.

It is also why I don't understand the attraction to some in the SBC to move in a calvinist direction.

The SBC has always been a clash of those who want a following of fellow churches for their "perfection theology" vs. those who view it as a grand mission-sending cooperation of churches.

The latter group found the magic answer in Autonomy where there were few damands for absolute theological conformity. Within the larger group calling themselves Southern Baptists have been a few egos who wanted control and used some theological club to beat their drum and the heads of other Southern Baptists.

In my lifetime it has been the Evolution vs. Science club being waved. The CR folks put together their "Inerrant Bible club" and have used it successfully!!!! It was much like the discovery of atomic power which can make a bomb or irradiate cancer and produce power.

If you notice, those egos require previous egos to EXIT even though they had managed to get along and support missions in the massive amounts close to the Roman Catholics. In my lifetime experience of Southern Baptists we always enjoyed having the largest church in most Southern towns. It was a tough call to say whether it was about God or Southern Society.

In far too many places the white-columed large building housed social movers and shakers more than it did dedicated servants of Christ trying to get along and supporting missions with their giving.

Then the mega church madness crept in!!! Criswell had his School of the Prophets training younger pastors on how to have the biggest church. Charles Stanley had one / Homer Lindsey had one / Ed Young / etc. = each one started to support the other---and then they decided to meet in airports and put together a strategy so they could run things.

Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson got together their Crusader swords and captured Texas, but were not satisfied until they had the SBC. The politics of dirt and derision were tools used to their max as their Inerrant Bible caveman club came down on the heads of anyone opposing them. When the SBC become so attractive a guy like Jerry Falwell joined the frey, it was time for me to seek another association! Jerry wanted to take the US Government into the fold as well and did a grand job of becoming a Republican.

Religion and Politics are now bedfellows----and the economy is crashed as we take over those "heathen Moslims" in the Middle East and the rich get richer! It reminds me of the Iquisition and Holy Wars quite well!!!!!

History is repeating itself and we have leaned NOTHING about the futility of war!

Sandy wrote: [The problem some of those in "fellowships" had with the SBC was that they believed there was enough of a connection within the denominational structure that meant churches couldn't really participate in the CP without supporting some institutions and schools that practice or taught liberal theology. And there is also the belief, which you will find among the more Calvinist brethren of the fundamentalists, that churches getting together and cooperating in missions takes churches out of what God intended, which is that the missionaries are accountable to the local church alone.

Sandy, while I pastored in NC, the state convention allowed for negative designations in its CP budget so that if churches did not want to support an institution or seminary, they could omit it from their giving. Maybe Texas forced it, but other states did not. Also, Virginia's process that allowed churches to craft their own giving plans was drafted as much to please the more conservative churches than to give CBF churches a way to leave out the SBC. You need a fact check here.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

NC is in the process or has already accomplished it to eliminate the 3-way choice of plans. I saw it as encouraging "unity within diversity," but all has changed here over the last 5 years.

The new "NC way" is in compliance with the SBC directives put into place within 10 years of the 1979 "takeover."

Our latest NC controversies have to do with the change in editors of the Biblical Recorder / firing of a DOM in the western part of the state near Charlotte / excluding a church which called a female pastor.

The takeover was supposed to bring growth and unity. It has done neither. The only reason we do not see financial crisis yet is the deep pockets developed pre-1979.

For me, we just continue to climb the monkey tree and show our monkey tails in the process!!!!